How Valuable Are Fossilized Mammoth Bones To the National Park System?

Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on March 10, 2009 - 8:13am

Today's African and Indian elephants would have been dwarfed by the Columbian mammoth. Illustration by Pat Ortega, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

There are national parks that focus on geology, that provide windows into ancient civilizations, and which honor westward expansion. So should one that preserves fossilized mammoth bones be added to the mix?

It's a question that seemingly has been answered, as the Interior Department has given U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, to introduce legislation that would turn a 68,000-year-old mammoth bone yard into a unit of the National Park System.

The Columbian mammoths, about two dozen in all, were killed by a mudslide near present-day Waco, Texas. Thus the site is known as the "Waco Mammoth Site." Their fossilized bones were discovered in 1978.

But is this site unique enough to be added to the National Park System, which already is struggled to adequately care for the 391 units it already has?

The Columbian mammoth is the state fossil of Washington state, their remains are said to be quite common in Mexico, and there's already a National Natural Landmark in South Dakota known as The Mammoth Site that offers the "largest mammoth research facility" in the world, as well as an active dig site that visitors can experience.

If the Waco site is worthy, what about having the U.S. Bureau of Land Management turn over to the National Park Service the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in Utah, where you can find "the densest concentration of Jurassic-aged dinosaur bones ever found. The deposit is also the largest collection of a large meat-eating dinosaur (allosaurus fragilis) ever found."

And surely the significance of both Mount Vernon and Monticello justify their addition to the National Park System, which already can count the homes of Lincoln and Roosevelt, as well as the summer camp of President Herbert Hoover.

Send to a friend

Comments

Submitted by Frank_C on March 10, 2009 - 11:03am.

While Monticello is no doubt significant, consider that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation "as a private, nonprofit organization . . . receives no regular federal or state budget support for its twofold mission of preservation and education". If a private, nonprofit is able to preserve and educate without taxpayer funds, why should it be placed in a political system that cannot maintain its current historic holdings?

Monticello is a model for how NPS historic sites could be operated, and the management of NPS historic sites serves as an anti-role model.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on March 10, 2009 - 1:35pm.

This would only be appropriate in the National Park system if there were very unique geological characteristics associated with the site. Simply because there are a lot of fossils here - and they are apparantly readily accessable - is not sufficient reason. There are lots and lots of places around the country with fossils of all types. If we accept a national park for mammoth fossils, then I can see dozens of other sites that should also be national parks because they have fossils of other types of extinct animals/reptiles/etc. Let's not saddle the National Park system with another unfunded mandate.

Submitted by Sabattis on March 10, 2009 - 8:42pm.

"But is this site unique enough to be added to the National Park System...?"

The career professionals at the National Park Service have apparently answered "yes" to this question, and a quick read of their Final Report makes it clear why. The report can be accessed here:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=442&projectId=12000&documentID=24485

Here is a key passage from the executive summary:
"The combination of both in situ articulated skeletal remains and the excavated specimens from the site represents the nation’s first and only recorded discovery of a nursery herd of Pleistocene mammoths. The
resource possesses exceptional interpretive value and provides superlative opportunities for visitor enjoyment and scientific study."

The Special Resource Study goes on to evaluate a number of management alternatives, including a non-NPS alternative, but concludes that the current lack of resources to accommodate visitation is insufficient for a site of such prominent National significance. This would be an important distinction for this site from places like Monticello and Mount Vernon that have well-developed visitor resources.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on March 11, 2009 - 1:15am.

Because the park service has managed the resources at DINO so well, getting rid of 2 of the 3 paleontologist and not fixing or taking care of the quarry building in a timely fashion. I think giving the NPS Cleveland-Lloyd would be a horrible idea.